Transnational corruption is inherently complex and difficult for any single country to address alone. As companies operate across jurisdictions, so do bribery risks – bringing multiple legal systems and authorities across the globe into play.
A new OECD report finds that countries have increasingly worked together, with law enforcement agencies collaborating across borders, to tackle these challenges. Multijurisdictional resolutions – where two or more countries co-ordinate their investigations and sanctions to address the same bribery scheme – are reshaping how corruption is tackled globally and helping to create a more level playing field for business.
From isolated investigations to global co-operation on enforcement
The analysis reveals a clear trend toward co-ordinated enforcement. Between 2008 and 2026, 31 cross-border corruption cases were resolved through multijurisdictional resolutions. In these cases, various combinations of 12 enforcing countries concluded 114 resolutions to sanction at least 74 companies. All but one of these resolutions were reached through non-trial resolution mechanisms – agreements between enforcement authorities and companies that resolve foreign bribery cases without a full trial on the merits of the allegations. These mechanisms, especially deferred or non-prosecution agreements, have proven critical to advancing enforcement efforts as they facilitate co-ordination by allowing authorities to align outcomes without requiring parallel trial resolutions in every jurisdiction.
The scale of these joint efforts is significant. The OECD estimates that participating countries have collectively imposed over USD 33.7 billion in sanctions or confiscation through multijurisdictional resolutions. This underscores both the magnitude of the harm caused by transnational corruption and the growing capacity of authorities to join forces to respond together.
More countries are taking a seat at the table
Another key finding is the marked increase in the diversity of jurisdictions involved. To date, 12 jurisdictions have participated in multijurisdictional resolutions, including both OECD members and non-members.
Enforcement of transnational corruption through multijurisdictional resolutions has historically involved countries sanctioning companies for bribing government officials in foreign countries, but this is changing. Since 2019, most cases involving multijurisdictional resolutions – nearly 86% – have involved at least one jurisdiction whose officials were bribed.
This shift means that more countries are not only addressing outbound bribery but also enforcing laws to protect their own public institutions by participating in multijurisdictional resolutions. It also opens the door to recovering funds linked to these schemes. According to the report, the multijurisdictional resolutions allocated an estimated USD 12.6 billion of the monetary recoveries to jurisdictions whose officials were bribed, with those demand-side countries that co-operated with the investigations benefitting, in every case, from compensation or other recovery mechanisms. This allocation both supports public institutions in the demand-side countries and highlights the fact that foreign bribery enforcement actions are not only punitive but can also contribute to repairing the harm of corruption.
Cross-border co-operation is a game changer for all countries
The rise of multijurisdictional resolutions reflects a simple reality: transnational corruption cuts across borders, financial systems and legal frameworks. Acting alone, countries may struggle to gather evidence or impose meaningful sanctions. Co-operation enables authorities to pool resources, share relevant information faster and more effectively, and ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are imposed on companies. Participating countries can also secure a portion of the recovered amounts to cover the costs of the investigation and compensate for the damage caused by corruption.
International standards, such as the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, and co-operation platforms, such as the OECD Working Group on Bribery and the OECD Global Law Enforcement Network, have helped enable multijurisdictional resolutions alongside mutual legal assistance frameworks and structured bilateral consultations between authorities. Together, these frameworks and practices are making co-ordinated enforcement more feasible and effective.
For governments, the report underscores the need for the right legal and institutional tools. Governments can facilitate their authorities’ ability to participate in co-ordinated efforts by ensuring that at least one effective non-trial resolution mechanism is available for complex corruption cases. These mechanisms enable authorities to better control the timing of their investigations, allowing for greater co-ordination than would be possible through court trials.
For businesses, multijurisdictional resolutions offer a more predictable framework than fragmented national proceedings. They can reduce the risk of duplicated penalties through aligned sanctioning approaches, while still maintaining strong deterrence and imposing enhanced corporate compliance obligations.
A new path for enhanced anti-corruption enforcement
The report’s findings point to a broader transformation in how corruption is tackled globally, with international co-operation becoming a central feature of anti-bribery enforcement. Multijurisdictional resolutions offer a path to reshaping how the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention is implemented, replacing isolated national efforts with collaborative enforcement across both supply- and demand-side jurisdictions. Countries can enhance their capacity to participate in multijurisdictional resolutions, by strengthening their corporate liability frameworks, using all available non-trial resolution mechanisms, and fostering their law enforcement partnerships. In this way, an increasing number of countries can play a greater role in sanctioning and remediating transnational corruption.
In an interconnected global economy, corruption does not stop at national borders, and increasingly, neither does the law enforcement response. The key question now is whether more countries will join and sustain these efforts by strengthening legal frameworks, building capacity and deepening co-operation.
